[…] reach this Inside, to “come home” in this way, is to lose touch with the prophetic tradition that prophesied the selfsame homecoming. The new identity replaces the old one, and, where it does not appear as an amalgam of […]

[...] always been the abiding or underlying or natural concept of human life on Earth – see, e.g., “…and many nations shall join themselves to the Eternal in that day”. [...]

[...] hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite@mattdussMatt Duss That a question – for instance, regarding the phenomenal forms of co-developing Americanist and Judaic concepts in and as world hist... – is easily polemicized is a sure sign that it is too deep for polemics, or for political [...]

[...] Jewish state. To legions of would-be interpreters of the Bible, these and related events seemed to resonate with or to fulfill theo-political prophecies from both Testaments, providing a background for further providential interpretation of [...]

[...] message and promise – but the same is true for ideological Americanism as well as Christianity. They may even be the same transnational message, with contemporary Christian Zionism being the bonsai version of something actually quite essential [...]

@ CK MacLeod:
They were very big beers. And maybe it was three.

@ Scott Miller:
Only a couple of beers? What were you thinking?

@ fuster:
Interesting article WH, WM. There's something similar going on in LA now, in connection with a beating of a Giant hat wearing family guy that took place at Dodger stadium. Before the season started, my wife and I attended an Angel game in Arizona. I was wearing a Giant hat--she an Angel hat. After a couple beers, I got an idea. We're in Arizona, over half of the players on both sides are Latino. Let's stand up and chant, "Amamos Latinos, amamos Latinos!" We did. The only person we could get to join in was a drunk Canadian. Even a couple of Spanish speaking people near us didn't stand up. They were embarrassed. Any normal people would have been shamed. Being freaks, we just kept chanting until the crowd was at least impressed with our hutzpah.

@ Scott Miller:
aw, shucks.

CK MacLeod wrote:

there is no Muslim, there is no American, there is no atheist, there is no Buddhist, there is no Hindu,

sorta ......... What Hindus, which Muslims ?

@ fuster:
Thanks. Good pickin'.

here's your dime back

that ain't pudding
that ain't pie

@ Scott Miller:

it would be an awful thing to tamper with the brilliance and beauty Plant's lyrics, Scott.

damned if I ever heard that song before.

fuster wrote:

I understood what you said and what you meant.

I retract my song. But check it out. When the harmonica starts and Plant is singing I just want a piece of your custard pie, sing I just don't understand your mystic mind instead.

there was no opportunity , you auto-opportunist!

I look at all you human beings and while you may all look alike, you smell different and make different croaking sounds, nest in differently decorated places, and are generally stupid enough to act in such madcap manner as to give great meaning to the idea that there are major differences.

there are few things as powerful as a really unreal idea.

see Art, Sacreligious

@ fuster:
I understood that you understood, or thought I did. Figgered you were giving a "reasonable" reaction, and an opportunity for me to expand upon the pointless point. So I took it.

@ CK MacLeod:

I understood what you said and what you meant.

@ CK MacLeod:

@ Scott Miller:
Franz Rosensweig, focusing on Christianity and Judaism, described "religion" as a kind of degraded specialization in comparison to the "original" element of faith. For him, Judaism (or what Judaism was really about) was a "fact" and Christianity an "event." Implicitly, what was authentic was the capacity "to free themselves from... religiosity," and emerge "from out of their specialization and self-enclosure behind walls... back again to the open field of reality."

Which is what's different about this perspective from John Lennon "Imagine"-ism, though I think it's what Lennon is taken or felt to be singing about - why the song is an anthem for an almost childlike New Age positive than a savage attack on anything. When he sings "no religion" he means no false exclusionary determinations, though his words taken literally would be exclusionary and merely negative, and are taken that way by conservatives.

When I was a kid, I thought the words to this song were, "I just can't understand your mystic mind." So I was thinking of Fuster not getting CK's point and the song came to me. Can't understand your mystic my-yind!

@ CK MacLeod:
Yes, that's it.
I also agree with the "That's all I was trying to say" comment. I knew that's what you were getting at and while you explain it in your own inimitable way, it's a common mystical perspective. Maybe even all mystics say the same thing.
Thanks for the Dr. John CC cc, Fuster.

@ Scott Miller:
I think that's it: I consulted with you on it once, you overrated my contribution, I never saw the finished piece. Jim might have. Probably you were forced to take it down for one reason or another before I ever could shamble over there.

@ fuster:
If there is no point, then there is no Christian, there is no Muslim, there is no American, there is no atheist, there is no Buddhist, there is no Hindu, there is no Sikh, there is no nihilist, there is no anyone else.

When the Sikhs said "there is no Muslim, there is no Hindu," they weren't denying that a whole bunch of people were running around with swords and holy books calling themselves either Muslim or Hindu and making all sorts of trouble about it. If not for the latter condition, they wouldn't have needed to defy it. They were denying that the supposed fundamental determinations of identity were fundamental. Rosensweig made the same argument in regard to Christianity and Judaism specifically that Scott's Buddhists make regarding Buddhism, I think, and that you make when you affirm the "mosaic and quilt."

Let's assume you consider yourself a Jew by belief and heritage but also someone who approves of the mosaic and quilt. Which is really your deeper belief, the one that you'd live and die for, and in? Or are they somehow the same belief or both ways of pointing to the further development - the same destination that from the messianic perspective draws both forward? (Prophecy points to the superfluousness of the Jewish law in the messianic age, since the Eternal will already be on everyone's lips.)

Each religion proposes a complete-in-itself perspective on totality. If you're a believing Christian, Christianity isn't your belief system or your ideology, it's the truth. It doesn't compete with the others, it's the ground of all, and every divergence from the Christian truth is error, ignorance, heresy, un-belief, or damnation. That means either that all of the others preach untruth or that it's possible to seek the same truth through different outward forms or with different starting points. Americanism doesn't say the latter, but its coherence depends upon it as a fundamental assumption. I've referred to that perspective before as the negatively syncretic character of Americanism.

This would be another example of a resolution that is in hand, but not yet comprehended, and it implies at a minimum that Buddhists today (today = the epoch of negatively syncretic Americanism/globalism/materialism within the era of the modern, thought and the universal) and in the light of eternity are also Christians, Muslims are also nihilists. In a shared and non-competitive development from unity toward a higher unity, "there is no Buddhist, there is no Jew" means that individuality, as a co-construction and correlate of universality, cannot be strictly or merely Buddhist or only Jew. "Jew" designates a transitory perspective, an accent or a moment, along on the way to universalization and idealization - and within Judaism itself that goal - all the nations joining the Eternal - is explicit. So when we call someone a Jew, or a Christian, or Buddhist, we are reifying and reducing her, separating her from the whole. The Christian is not "the concept that is there," but a partial reflection, a backwards-looking refraction, a treason, a human being as objectified part-ideology.

That's all I was trying to say.

Scott Miller wrote:

Not that any of that has to do with CK’s point.

There is no point.

fuster wrote:

Most anyone else would say otherwise.

Lots of Buddhists recognize that it is profoundly un-Buddhist to think of themselves as Buddhists, and Mark Twain said, "There has only been one real Christian--and they got to him early."
Not that any of that has to do with CK's point.

@ Scott Miller:

have a RCC and see CCR

There is no Christian, there is no Muslim, there is no American, there is no atheist, there is no Buddhist, there is no Hindu, there is no Sikh, there is no nihilist, there is no anyone else.

Most anyone else would say otherwise.

In NYC, we used to have a melting pot till we got a beautiful mosiac that we tire of re-tiling and cover with a crazy quilt.

Also, it couldn't have been Jim. The SSM was played with in rows and columns. SSM SMM MSS
You helped me with it so that it related to some Yiddish or Hebrew something or other. Jim would have been no help. It's kind of funny thinking of him helping with it, given his dyslexia.

@ CK MacLeod:
I know you not only saw the piece, but helped me with it. It was the same day you suggested that I make another piece made up of staples. It's okay. You might be right that maybe you missed the actual installation put together. Another of it's central parts was a bunch of shaped canvases that formed a fish. The fish symbol related to the whole Christ thing, of course, and sometimes I put some Gifilte fish on the high-holiday dish. There was a place for an egg, and some other things which went along with a ceremony I can't remember.

@ Scott Miller:
No - sorry - are you absolutely sure that I ever saw it? I have a pretty good memory for unusual works of art. I only ever visited that house a handful of times, and I am not Jim. If I did see it, I was probably either too stoned that day or too self-involved or both... or maybe struggling to look cool (my imitation of it) while trying to figure out how to impress some friend of yours and Danielle's...

@ CK MacLeod:
I'm cool with all that. I wish you could remember the knitted paintless painting I made with your help, using the letters SSM knitted out in different ways to play with some messianic ideas of ours. I mentioned it a few months back, but you didn't remember. This was in the 80s. It became part of a whole installation that was in the living room of the house near the Beverly Center. The room had white cork walls and I put up hundreds of photos around a circular wood painted table that had a high-holiday type plate some Rabbi gave me. Remember?

@ Scott Miller:
As you know, I kind of know why it isn't just a parochial assertion on your part that your particular thing is also part of the universal thing. "Yoga" would be another name for the depiction of the Holy Land that I started with, and so I'm going to see if I can find the right place for the word and concept.

The messianic idea is a yogic (unifying) idea, I think, since it insists on the absolute interdependence and therefore fundamental union of the individual adept and the collective. I interpret your yogic history as an attempt to join yoga to a messianic progressive history. (Cohen proves that prophetic messianism is the birth of "progress" and "history" in the full sense, history as the movement of humanity in development toward the future rather than merely the representation of the past.)

Wow. I know you didn't have hatha yoga in mind, but as you can understand in retrospect, what you wrote parallels what I believe to be Yogic evolution. Finally, we get to "...in favor of every anything at all." But as you make clear, that is not the same as "anything goes." Everything and anything doesn't go. It just means we evolve to the point that what happens is happening in favor of everything anything at all. There has been one fully sub- and re-merged thing after another until we come to everything anything at all. That wasn't true until now, and now, for the first time, right at the point when it changes everything and can't change anything, we have a yoga that expresses everything anything at all.

@ fuster:
This could get into some peculiar and abstruse semantic issues - my favorite thing. But let's take the real world example I most had in mind: Israel and the Pals.

An MWer in good standing and not one of the crazier ones, Shmuel, believes that there's no solution, and says as much. Therefore, he says, solidaritarians should focus on supporting Pal rights and ameliorating their conditions. In short, though he doesn't say so, what we see is what we've got and all we're going to get. The supposed "problem" - Palestinian statelessness - is in principle solved, and therefore isn't a problem at all. They won't get full citizenship in a state they can call their own, or even in anyone else's, and that's the reality that we must adjust to. What he doesn't acknowledge is that the only real difference between him and Arnon Soffer is that Arnon Soffer declines to look away from what, given human nature and history, that really means - and is a heartless drama queen.

Similarly, if you're scuba-diving, and have gone too deep, and are out of air, that you're going to die isn't a problem, it's a fact. The problem isn't getting air. The reality is you have no air. The problem is what part of your long misspent life to look back on in your last moments.

I think my definition was sound. What "real people" say isn't exactly immaterial, but is often sloppy. We'd like to visit other stars, but the fact that we can't travel faster than the speed of light presents a "problem." But the problem isn't a real problem, it's a postulate specifically meant to define a fundamental aspect of physical reality itself. The reality, according to physics, is that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible. FTL is not a "problem." Its absence is what is.

Too much summarizing Proust, makes the Czar a dull boy, or something

@ CK MacLeod:

The Tsar, as he's been several times advised, needs to cut back on some of his bad influences.

when actual human beings actually say 'no solution' to a problem, they usually mean that there is a problem and that any of the possible contemplated solutions for it is not non-existent, but merely far from hand.

sorta like when you're scuba diving and really want a cigarette.

the reality is that you can have one, and you can even smoke it, but it's just not gonna happen real soon.

@ fuster:
What would mrs fuster have to look at to help the Tsar on Comment #2? We take it as a general attack on dialecticalness. But maybe the frog was joking, or maybe the frog had something else in mind, or both.

mrs fuster likes to look at shit. that and fingernails. she says that if she examines those things, she can get a pretty decent idea of the owner's digestion and general health.

I suspect that the Tsar could probably write a description of shit that would be good enough for her to work from.

you surely can write.

miguel cervantes wrote:

you need to go to the roots in Judaism, the message is clear as a bell, and it’s not metaphorical

That is a mistake based on a misunderstanding of the nature of language, even and especially the language of revealed religion.

If you want, as you say, to go to the roots of Judaism, but perhaps take a shortcut if you're not fluent in Hebrew, you could do a lot worse than read Cohen's last testament (still in the sidebar), since Cohen, credentialed as no one ever before or since, a Jew who had risen to lead the German philosophical establishment in the last moment before the historical squall overwhelmed all boats, took on the task of deriving that "message" from the prophetic sources.

Well I'm kind of amateur at this, I admit, but to study real Christianity, you need to go to the roots in Judaism, the message is clear as a bell,
and it's not metaphorical

@ miguel cervantes:
I think Hermann Cohen knew his Torah almost as well as you. He disagreed.

The title of the post comes from Zechariah, and is a peak of messianic "transnationalism" from the period following the Babylonian exile (ca. 520 BC), but the sources go back to the origins of the origins, because they must: They are embedded within the logic of monotheism, and are not dependent on any particular historical-geographical snapshot.

To stand by the claim of “no solution” would be the same as claiming that there is no problem – that the problem is no problem at all, but reality itself.

This MUST stop. It's a problem.

It's a wonder, how much you can get wrong when you put your mind to it, Judaism started in Mesopotamia, after a brief respite in Canaan, they end up in Egypt, then after the Exodus, there is that 40 year period of the wilderness. It is in Joshua, that the promise is made, of
the contiguous Israel, which is much larger than is settled. in the fullness of times, Jerusalem falls again to Nebuchadnezzar, and later Persia